Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Misconceptions of E=MC^2
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 91 of 243 (452368)
01-30-2008 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by pelican
01-30-2008 7:15 AM


Re: energy and mass
However to obtain a small amount of mass from a huge amount of energy cannot be proved and cannot be tested. I contend that some believe e=mc2 has been verifed by testing and this is not true, only in reverse. It is asserted to be true because it must be.
So, just for the record Heinrik, you are contending that every particle factory in the world doesn't actually work, and every particle physicist in the world is lying, and hiding a huge conspiracy that we have never observed pair creation
You are utterly deluded, and beyond help. Truly pathetic. I just hope that the hundreds of lurkers who have perused this thread have managed to see beyond your mad frothy ranting and raving and have actually perhaps learned something about particle physics.
Bye bye

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 7:15 AM pelican has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 92 of 243 (452369)
01-30-2008 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by pelican
01-30-2008 7:22 AM


Re: don't insult me
You don't even rcognise your own arrogance
Arrogance is misplaced confidence. I can assure you that my confidence is very well placed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 7:22 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by pelican, posted 02-04-2008 12:11 AM cavediver has replied

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 93 of 243 (452370)
01-30-2008 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by pelican
01-30-2008 6:47 AM


In other words if mass can produce energy then energy can produce mass. This was the original idea of Einsteins theory of everything.
However, this formula has never been tested. It was my contention that this half of the equasion has been misunderstood in this forum.
Conversion of energy to mass is happening inside your body all the time. Part of you is the nuclide Potassium-40, which is radioactive. Just after it decays, an energetic gamma-ray (energy) is emitted. Sometimes, when the gamma-ray encounters a nucleus, part of its energy is converted to a pair of particles (electron and positron) which possess mass. This is a very well-known nuisance in gamma-ray spectrometry.
It is unfortunate that you have taken hold of an erroneous notion. Now you have an opportunity to relinquish it and carry on without it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 6:47 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 8:14 AM Woodsy has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 94 of 243 (452371)
01-30-2008 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by pelican
01-30-2008 2:11 AM


Re: keeping it simple
oops
first line should have been "If E = m•c² is true, then ..."
Please keep it simple.
Sorry, didn't mean to skip explanations of the steps.
The point is that then energy plus mass before an event that changes energy to mass or vice versa should be related to the energy plus mass after the event.
You can measure the change in energy = ΔE
You can measure the change in mass = Δm
If there was conversion, then when one is positive the other should be negative.
It is.
And if the conversion rate is constant, then they should be related by some constant value. We can define and determine this constant by:
ΔE + Kp•Δm = 0, where Kp is the assumed constant of conversion
and solving for the constant gives you
Kp•Δm = -ΔE
Kp = -ΔE/Δm
Do this for a number of different levels of energy to mass conversions and plot the value of Kp against (-ΔE/Δm) to see the distribution or trend.
If the formula is true then the constant should be equal to c² (within the error of measurements for energy and mass).
It is.
For the experiments that have been made.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : ..


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 2:11 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 8:19 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 243 (452372)
01-30-2008 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by cavediver
01-30-2008 5:26 AM


The measured mass of 1kg of lead consists of almost entirely the binding energy (i.e. gluons) holding the quarks....
Ack! I forgot about that.

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by cavediver, posted 01-30-2008 5:26 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 96 of 243 (452376)
01-30-2008 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by pelican
01-30-2008 12:21 AM


Keeping it simple
All the physically proven experiments with e=mc2 have been in using it in reverse i.e mass divided by the square root of c2 = minus energy (mass).
As it stands e = mc2 i.e the theory of producing matter from energy using the square of the speed of light has never been proved, only the reverse.
This I believe is a common misconception amongst the members in this forum.
Would you agree that if we were to measure, e, m, and c and we were to find that e=mc2 that would confirm the equation was accurate? We just measure each of the variables and see how they relate to one another. If they relate to one another in the same way then the equation is right - yes?
Likewise, if you measured, e, m, and c you might find that m = e/c2
If we find that e=mc2 when we measure e, m and c. If we find that m = e/c2 would you agree that e = mc2 is a correct description of the relationship between energy and mass?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 12:21 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 8:37 AM Modulous has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 97 of 243 (452377)
01-30-2008 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Woodsy
01-30-2008 7:51 AM


Conversion of energy to mass is happening inside your body all the time. Part of you is the nuclide Potassium-40, which is radioactive. Just after it decays, an energetic gamma-ray (energy) is emitted. Sometimes, when the gamma-ray encounters a nucleus, part of its energy is converted to a pair of particles (electron and positron) which possess mass. This is a very well-known nuisance in gamma-ray spectrometry.
Really interesting. i was hoping to take this to another level which does include the human body. I had no idea this knowledge was available but maybe you are the best one to open a new thresd on this subject.
It is unfortunate that you have taken hold of an erroneous notion. Now you have an opportunity to relinquish it and carry on without it.
It's a pity you had to ruin a perfectly good post with taking the stance of 'you are right and I am wrong'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Woodsy, posted 01-30-2008 7:51 AM Woodsy has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 98 of 243 (452378)
01-30-2008 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by RAZD
01-30-2008 7:54 AM


Re: keeping it simple
first line should have been "If E = m”c is true, then ..."
Please keep it simple.
Sorry, didn't mean to skip explanations of the steps.
The point is that then energy plus mass before an event that changes energy to mass or vice versa should be related to the energy plus mass after the event.
You can measure the change in energy = E
You can measure the change in mass = m
If there was conversion, then when one is positive the other should be negative.
It is.
And if the conversion rate is constant, then they should be related by some constant value. We can define and determine this constant by:
E + Kp”m = 0, where Kp is the assumed constant of conversion
and solving for the constant gives you
Kp”m = -E
Kp = -E/m
Thanks but these symbols are way over my head. Can these be expressed in words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2008 7:54 AM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by molbiogirl, posted 01-30-2008 4:27 PM pelican has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 99 of 243 (452380)
01-30-2008 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by pelican
01-30-2008 12:21 AM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
Heinrik writes:
As it stands e = mc2 i.e the theory of producing matter from energy using the square of the speed of light has never been proved, only the reverse.
The equivalence has been experimentally verified in both directions. The conversion of energy to mass is much more difficult because such huge amounts of energy are necessary to create very little mass.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 12:21 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 5:20 PM Percy has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 100 of 243 (452382)
01-30-2008 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Modulous
01-30-2008 8:08 AM


Re: Keeping it simple
Would you agree that if we were to measure, e, m, and c and we were to find that e=mc2 that would confirm the equation was accurate? We just measure each of the variables and see how they relate to one another. If they relate to one another in the same way then the equation is right - yes?
Likewise, if you measured, e, m, and c you might find that m = e/c2
If we find that e=mc2 when we measure e, m and c. If we find that m = e/c2 would you agree that e = mc2 is a correct description of the relationship between energy and mass?
What does e/c2 represent?
I really don't dispute that the equasion is correct. It seems that most posts are concerned with explaining the meaning of e=mc2 to me as though I didn't understand it. I do. I just made a few mistakes. mainly because I am human.
Once more my contention is that many perceptions of E=MC2 are in fact, misconceptions. There are many contradicting versions from different points of view. This is science that is supposed to answer all evolutionists questions and because it is physical proof, creationists are supposed to accept it on face value without a hope of understanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Modulous, posted 01-30-2008 8:08 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Modulous, posted 01-30-2008 9:06 AM pelican has replied

  
Shield
Member (Idle past 2862 days)
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-29-2008


Message 101 of 243 (452386)
01-30-2008 9:01 AM


Heinrik, it seems that you think that E=mc2 is some sort of recipe with the purpose of creating energy from mass.
It is NOT.
Instead of arguing against better knowing people, i suggest you read the wikipedia entry on E=mc2:
Mass—energy equivalence - Wikipedia

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 102 of 243 (452388)
01-30-2008 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by pelican
01-30-2008 8:37 AM


Re: Keeping it simple
What does e/c2 represent?
m
e = mc2
divide both sides by c2
e/c2 = m
Once more my contention is that many perceptions of E=MC2 are in fact, misconceptions.
Yes, you've expressed some of them yourself, providing a wonderful example of the thread's topic; that it is about getting matter travel at impossible speeds so that it becomes energy, for example.
This is science that is supposed to answer all evolutionists questions and because it is physical proof, creationists are supposed to accept it on face value without a hope of understanding.
Relativity doesn't come into biology. There simply isn't enough energy involved to make it necessary to take relativity into account.
I really don't dispute that the equasion is correct.
You seem to have doubts that it has been experimentally confirmed. So, if you would be so kind as to answer the question: Would you agree that if we were to measure, e, m, and c and we were to find that e=mc2 that would confirm the equation was accurate?
If yes: then creationists don't have to take at face value. They can look at the confirmatory experiments themselves. Even perform some of them if they can get the funds.
If no: why not? By definition if we were to observe that e=mc2 surely that confirms that e=mc2?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 8:37 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 6:52 PM Modulous has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 243 (452422)
01-30-2008 10:15 AM


Energy and Mass.
Okay let's understand the equation in a simple scenario. I apologize if any of the following has a condescending tone, but I think you are severely confused.
First we will need a definition of Energy. Keeping it simple, Energy is the ability to do work. Now what is Mass? Again not to make things to difficult, I'll be horribly loose and say Mass is what you get when you put something on a weighing scale, a measure of how much gravity is pulling you down.*
Now let's say I work in the Ikata Nuclear Power Plant in Japan. I take a large amount of Uranium and weigh it before I put it in the reactor. Now I put it in the reactor, turn the reactor on and power the whole Ehime Prefecture for a day. I take the stuff out of the reactor and weigh it. I find that the stuff weighs less.
So the Uranium lost some mass and gained some ability to do work (Powering the Ehime Prefecture).
How much ability for work? Well if the mass lost was M, then it would be E = MC^2.
Now you are also asking can this work backwards? Can energy be converted into mass? The answer is yes, but not in a direct sense. You can't have "ability to do work" just hanging around on its own, waiting to be converted into mass. Rather a bunch of particles might reduce their own ability to do work. The lost amount of energy is then the Mass of a new particle, with mass given by E=MC^2.
Really I'm skipping a lot here, but a full explanation would involve Special Relativity and some Quantum Mechanics.
*This not what mass is. I'm keeping things simple. Mass is actually not the same as weight.
Edited by Son Goku, : Removed a word.

  
humoshi
Junior Member (Idle past 5248 days)
Posts: 25
Joined: 01-29-2008


Message 104 of 243 (452474)
01-30-2008 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by cavediver
01-30-2008 5:26 AM


Re: plain english please
quote:
No, mass is not a form of energy - mass is a measure of energy, irrespective of the form of the energy.
Ah yes, I knew that somewhere in my brain.
I think what I meant to say is:
Is it more accurate to say that one form of energy called matter is converted to another form of energy
That's probably inaccurate too, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by cavediver, posted 01-30-2008 5:26 AM cavediver has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 105 of 243 (452528)
01-30-2008 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by pelican
01-30-2008 8:19 AM


Re: keeping it simple
Thanks but these symbols are way over my head. Can these be expressed in words.
Nonsense.
You just don't want to try.
I know what it's like to sit in a physics lecture and be so gd lost that you're just watching a guy write on a chalkboard.
I felt that way in P Chem today.
But RAZD's explanation is simple, clear and to the point. Every variable is defined, every step is explained.
But maybe I am expecting too much. After all. You were unable to deduce the E = mc2 is equivalent to E/c2 = m.
Oh. And one more thing.
You are aware that particle accelerators create matter from energy now, yes?
(Adding, of course, the necessary caveats re: "creation" that have been mentioned in this thread, e.g. Message 103.)
Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.
Edited by molbiogirl, : darn codes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 8:19 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 7:50 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024